<p>Btw, re Clinton and WalMart:<a href=“excerpted%20from%20an%20article%20on%20boston.com”>quote</a> Bob Ortega, author of ''In Sam We Trust," a history of Wal-Mart, said Clinton used her position to urge the company to improve its gender and racial diversity. Because of Clinton’s prodding, Walton agreed to hire an outside firm to track the company’s progress in hiring women and minorities, Ortega said.</p>
<p>Clinton proved to be such a thorn in Walton’s side that at Wal-Mart’s annual meeting in 1987, when shareholders challenged Walton on the company’s lack of female managers, he assured them the record was improving ''now that we have a strong-willed young lady on the board."</p>
<p>Clinton was particularly vocal on environmental matters, pressing the company to boost its sale and use of recycled materials and other ''green" products.</p>
<p>Still, critics say there was little tangible change at Wal-Mart during Clinton’s tenure, despite her apparent prodding.</p>
<p>''There’s no evidence she did anything to improve the status of women or make it a very different place in ways Mrs. Clinton’s Democratic base would care about," said Liza Featherstone, author of ''Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Worker’s Rights at Wal-Mart."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Both pros of what she attempted and cons of what she didn’t achieve. Probably a fair summary. But Clinton doesn’t deserve a priori demonization for her association with WalMart.</p>
<p>TheDad, the words themselves were not offensive. But the subtext (it took a white person to get it done) was outrageous, and I don’t think I’m the only one who interpreted that to be what she was saying. She in fact might not have meant it that way. In fact, she was probably thinking that it was just hitting on her theme of doing versus talking. But it came across as offensive and she really should have thought it through more. </p>
<p>But to me one half-baked comment is a very minor point. What bothers me so much is how they will do or say anything now that they see their collective grasp on the nomination in just the smallest degree of peril. Thank God Obama finally aired an ad that says the truth: Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected. I wish we could go back in time and get Bill impeached AND thrown out of office. </p>
<p>I am not sure how much Hillary supporters realize how much she is HATED by much of the country (as well as adored by others). She personifies the term “polarizing figure”. We will continue on the current path of red versus blue and hatred and ill will, if she is President.</p>
<p>Clinton may have been “particularly vocal on environmental matters” regarding Wal-Mart, since she was specifically put on their Board to be in charge of their “green” program. She was paid well for that, and she received between a bundle in Wal-Mart stock. Bill also received hefty campaign contributions from Wal-Mart, in both Arkansas, and nationally, when he ran for president. She resigned in 1992, and they didn’t replace her. When she was put on the Board, she wasn’t replacing anyone either. Wal-Mart offered her money when she ran for the NY Senate (~$5,000), but she returned it. I wonder why.</p>
<p>Let’s face it, Wal-Mart’s bad reputation doesn’t stem from how "green’ it is (and it’s not-- talk about their contribution to suburban sprawl), or how many women it does or doesn’t hire. While it’s true their prices are low, do you know how many places have gone out of business, because Wal-Mart has moved in? Wal-Mart puts companies out of business, or if you do business with Wal-Mart, you can rest assured everything will be outsourced, which means more job loss for American workers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wal-Mart is awful to its employees, with low wage violations, and no health care benefits. They are and have always been very anti-union. Some 5,000 lawsuits are made against Wal-Mart every year. And they give huge amounts of campaign contributions-- more to Republicans than Democrats-- but this is one scary company. Given Hillary’s involvement with them, I can’t believe she gets the support of unions in this country. I think she absolutely deserves very close scrutiny with her (past?) Wal-Mart association.</p>
<p>I thought the subtext was that it took a president to get it done. </p>
<p>I heard the same things about Hillary’s relationship with Walmart. Walmart has built a number of green stores (grass roof in Vancouver!) in the last few years - so perhaps they are getting to be less evil? :)</p>
<p>90% of Wal-Mart employess now have health benefits. The jobs are probably better paying and more stable than the small store retail jobs they may have replaced. The lower prices are very helpful to people in lower income areas and most low income people LOVE having Wal-Mart around. They get better selections and fresher goods than the old town retailers provided.</p>
<p>"90% of Wal-Mart employess now have health benefits. The jobs are probably better paying and more stable than the small store retail jobs they may have replaced. The lower prices are very helpful to people in lower income areas and most low income people LOVE having Wal-Mart around. "</p>
<p>My husband worked a minimum wage, retail job for many years (actually still has his second job in grocery) and Wal Mart was far and away not the worst of the bunch.</p>
<p>In Nickled and Dimed To Death, a book several years old, some reporter took several low paying jobs for a few months. A waitress, a maid for a cleaning service, and Wal-Mart. Her description of Wal-mart, and how they treat their employees is interesting. They did offer health insurance, but it was 11% of her salary, so she couldn’t afford it. And this was before the big increases in the cost of health insurance and health care.</p>
<p>Anyone who uses a cleaning service should also read her account of that. It was really disgusting.
You probably never will again.</p>
<p>So Barron, how much do the Wal-Mart employees now pay for these benefits and can they afford them?</p>
<p>Wal-Mart sweeps into all these towns in America, get huge tax breaks, and puts small local businesses out of business. They’ve put larger businesses out of business. They basically create ghost towns all across Americ. Their profits go back into their Arkansas headquarters. They pay their employees next to nothing, and they can offer their cheap prices because they basically use slave labor in China allows them to do so. </p>
<p>They published in 2007 that 90% of their employees have health insurance, but that’s been questioned; they included the number of employees who have health insurance covered by their spouse (not working at Wal-Mart). Also, while they offer various types of health insurance (to make it affordable), their cheapest comes with a $3,000 deductable. Ouch. </p>
<p>They’ve raised employee wages, but they have pay ranges, and they put a cap on them:</p>
<p>“They’ve raised employee wages, but they have pay ranges, and they put a cap on them”</p>
<p>I work for one of the top law firms in the country and I have a cap, many law firms have ranges and caps. Lowly folks like me see nothing wrong with that, though, because we see it as informative rather than secretive. With caps in many places comes the knowledge that the next step on the ladder has a higher range. Oh and yes, I’m at my cap. Actually, my husband is too, although our salaries work differently.</p>
<p>The issue is that in order to get a raise at Wal-Mart (they don’t even take into consideration cost of living increases), you’d have to move into a different job category. The question is, how easy is it for a low-wage employee to move up in job categories at Wal-Mart. That’s not rhetorical; I honestly don’t know, but I doubt it’s a cakewalk. (zoosermom-- I also suspect you make more than ~$9 an hour; I bet your health benefits are good and affordable, too.)</p>
<p>I do know that I don’t shop at Wal-Mart nor at any Wal-Mart owned companies, and have no plans to do so. Regardless of how they treat their employees (which I think is bad), I hate what they’ve done to small towns and locally owned businesses all across America.</p>
<p>“The issue is that in order to get a raise at Wal-Mart (they don’t even take into consideration cost of living increases), you’d have to move into a different job category. The question is, how easy is it for a low-wage employee to move up in job categories at Wal-Mart. That’s not rhetorical; I honestly don’t know.” </p>
<p>I only know second hand about Wal-Mart specifically, but in most retail settings the legal team makes that information very available to employees and they can either do what is required or not, depending on their circumstances. My husband, for example, never could because he lacks the writing skills to ever have taken the next step. Which is why his six figure city job was a God-send for us. But he understood that going in and always understood that his limitations were his problem and not his employer’s. We both always understood that if the stores for which he worked went under (because of boycotts for example), we’d be in big trouble. I sincerely, as the spouse of that class of workers, don’t comprehend what your problem is or what you actually expect.</p>
<p>I honestly don’t expect anything from Wal-Mart. They are notoriously bad to their employees. Certainly, they employ a lot of people, but they’ve also put many people out of business, or forced lay-offs in other companies. Their prices are dirt-low, because they basically employ slave labor in China. I think they’ve ruined the economy of a lot of small towns across America. There’s a reason why people fight to keep them out of their back yards. There’s a reason why Hillary Clinton returned their campaign contributions.</p>
<p>I’ve also pointed out, with links above, some of the other problems I have with them. I’m certainly not in the minority with my disdain for Wal-Mart. So, we disagree on how we view them. Getting back to the point, I would seriously think twice about voting for someone who was on their Board, who took lots of money from them, and who made a bundle off of stocks from them. For me, that says a lot about this particular presidential candidate.</p>
<p>“They are notoriously bad to their employees.”</p>
<p>Yes we do disagree. How many of those workers do you know, have you spoken to? That’s not facetious, by the way, it’s just that I wonder where you are coming from with your perspective. I also completely respect your differering opinion and understand why you would consider your candidate based upon your principles and opinions.</p>
<p>Hillary’s service on the Wal-Mart board is the least of my concerns about her! One thing I’ll say for all of these candidates is that they are devoted to their work and I would not be surprised to hear that she was a vocal board member in support of health insurance and benefits for workers. </p>
<p>I still hate their campaign tactics and their bullying approach to squelching competition and disagreement with their policies or points of view–which just isn’t going to work in our very diverse, some might say fragmented, country. We need someone to unify us to the extent possible, not divide us. I am convinced that Barack Obama is the person best able to do this.</p>
<p>"DILLON, S.C. - Bill Clinton said Wednesday he expects blacks to vote for Barack Obama and women to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the dynamic may cause his wife to lose the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary Saturday. </p>
<p>The comments by the former president — who also lashed out at Obama and the news media — mark one of the starkest commentaries yet on the possible role of race, although it has been a subtext of the Obama-Clinton rivalry for months. The comments also furthered the Clintons’ bid to play down Sen. Clinton’s chances of winning in a state where Obama seems to be ahead."</p>
<p>It’s brilliant. Subtext: white people don’t vote for…</p>
<p>"But we also have a good idea what a Clinton presidency would look like. The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault - but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pretend that it won’t happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win. Indeed, the Clintons’ joint career in public life seems oriented toward securing victory and personal vindication.</p>
<p>Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership. In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration - and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity - transcending party - is a core value in itself.</p>
<p>Can such unity be restored, in this poisonous political culture? Not unless that is a nominee’s goal from the outset. It will be a difficult challenge for any candidate; but we wait in the hope that someone really will try. There is no other hope for rescuing our republic from the mire.</p>
<p>Sen. Obama would also have the best chance to repair the damage to America’s global reputation. A leader with his biography - including his roots in Africa and his years spent growing up overseas - could transform the world’s view of America. He would seize that opportunity." </p>
<p>A quick read of the SC paper, and I’d like to correct at least one glaring mistake written there:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s be real clear. His plan for withdrawing from Iraq was written up long before either Clinton or Obama came up with any plan at all. In fact, I think Obama followed Edwards’ lead; their plans on Iraq are fairly similar, though Edwards came up with it first. Clinton wouldn’t decide on what to do in Iraq, until she was forced to do so, and then finally realized that she better go with what the American public wanted.</p>
<p>In addition, this little editorial says that
</p>
<p>Well, who wouldn’t? Here’s what Edwards said about that a while ago:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that the Clintons have tried to turn this into a race issue, and Obama fed right into it, but I have to also question Obama’s “unifying” ability. I think we caught a glimpse of that the other night at the SC debate, didn’t we? And that was with a Democrat. If the Clintons can do this kind of damage to him this early on, what’s he gonna face later, and how’s he gonna get through that?</p>
<p>I was also listening to NPR a minute ago, and apparently, Hillary is now in Los Angeles, eating burritos (NPR’s words) and whatever. She’s trying to get the Latino vote now, and they interviewed several Latinos out in CA. Most thought Obama was Muslim, and they couldn’t understand how a Muslim could get this far in a presidential election. ?? Good grief. I wish the voting public would start paying attention. They didn’t in the last two elections, and look what happened to us. </p>
<p>I honestly think, before people can vote, we should all be made to take a test to see how much we know about each candidate, and pass it before we can go into that voting booth. Seriously.</p>
And the notion that we can have a vague “unity” is a pie-in-the-sky fairytale. What a naif. </p>
<p>As I wrote in another post: There’s a sentiment in some quarters, based on false premises, that we can “all work together.” Bullfeathers. You can’t “work together” if one side is determined to be a jingoistic unilateral player in the Middle East and the other isn’t, when one side wants to keep in place the Bush tax cuts that favor the wealthy and one doesn’t, when one side wants to screw labor and the environment and one doesn’t, when one side wants to perpetuate the appointment of judges like Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas and one doesn’t, when one side is anti-Choice and the other side is pro-Choice. Not only are these not compromisable issues, they are not compromisable world views.</p>
<p>There is only unity where there is a common purpose, a common goal. Americans don’t have that right now. Now, if everyone agrees to give up jingoistic unilateralism, economic policies tilted towards the upper one percent of the taxpayers, the appointment of whackjob judges like Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, anti-Choice policies, religious views substituting for science, and a bunch of other crud, we can be unified. But somehow I doubt this is going to happen so we’ll just have to fight it out. </p>
<p>I’d like to think that our terms will be a little more pragmatic, a little more inclusive, a little more civil than what the Republicans have inflicted upon the country for the past seven years. But if they resist, I’ll hammer them every step of the way and if it requires inflicting great pain upon them in the process, I really don’t give a damn. Payback’s a *****. And if any complain, I would remind them that they should have thought about the possibility of turnabout before embarking on the road they did seven years ago.</p>
<p>Bipartisanship - whether in foreign or miltiary policy, tax policy, trade policy, or social policy - has been a disaster for this country over the past 20 years, and I hope we can find a candidate who will end it. (But I have my doubts: the corporate socialists are far too strong.)</p>
<p>(My personal view is that an election between McCain and Hillary won’t even be close - McCain will win - but we’ll just have to see.)</p>